host: lake arrowhead, california. caller: about tax-free municipal bonds, they are accepting lower interest rates than what is available for corporate bonds. that is different to the type of substitute tax the benefits the recent -- municipalities that issue the bonds. secondly, there will tax should not be considered equivalent to income tax because medicare and social security taxes are a prepayment for an insurance-led benefit that goes directly to the individual. that money does not support all of the other efforts of government, like the military and welfare, which is supported by income tax. guest: absolutely right. a tax break miscible bonds and that, in large part, benefiting municipalities. some of it accrues to high- income investors in those securities.

host: quickly, as we close, but have the last couple of days been like with mitt romney's comments? heat your work is quoted in many of these new pitbull -- newspaper stories. what has this done for the tax debate in this society? guest: this is a topic that has gone viral once before or twice. this has just rekindled that. lots of concern about how fair are tax system is, in part, because of all of the complexities. people have this concern that people are gaming the system and not paying their fair share. i think the facts suggest that the 47% number is not believe the right way to think about that challenge. you need to think about payroll taxes, think about the spending side of the government, not just the tax side, but certainly, it has brought attention to how complicated our system is. host: we are going to take you now to our coverage of the house

of representatives. they will be working on welfare legislation with a bill that republicans had sponsored that would address president obama's interest in changing the rules for welfare recipients work regulations. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] he serve the people of district 11. the service to talents. during these travels, ricky never once met a stranger. with his easy smile and open demeanor, ricky would make someone feel he knew them for a lifetime. he never forgot that his home was comanche, texas.

it was a community he was raised in, a community that taught him the character and moral that would guide his life. perhaps that is also where he inherited his stubborn streak. he has the confidence and the possibilities that could be in spite of the limited vision of those around him. you could see this in him every day as he quietly refused to yield to mediocrity. it was his stubbornness that set ricky aside from the crowd and that's where he felt comfortable. showing the rest of us the way. today, ricky is still just a little further up the path, showing us the way, as he showed us how he carried himself in the face of those deep difficulties toward the end of his life. we'll remember ricky as he will want to be remembered, a faithful friend, a tireless worker whose hopeful, idealistic and decent way of life inspired us all. to those who worked with him

and knew him, his loss will be felt every time we gather together without him. he'll never be replaced or forgotten and i ask you for your prayers for ricky and his family and for those who loved him. i miss my friend. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. there have been two struggles to make american democracy work. first was who would be eligible to vote. originally only those who were white, male, property owners over 21, perhaps a quarter of the population. more than 3/4 of a century later having fought a civil war, african-americans were granted the franchise. it would be another 2/3 of a century before voting rights were extended to women. finally in a battle i was proud to be part of as a college student campaigning and testifying before congress, we adopted the 26th amendment, extending the voting rights to young people at age 18.

but there's always been a second battle. who amongst the theoretically eligible voters are actually able to cast their ballot and have it counted? it's no secret in the states of the old south waged a brutal extra legal war to prevent newly enfranchised african-americans from comprfering it. the discrimination, intimidation and violence are well chronicled and that's why almost a century after african-americans were given the legal right to vote we still needed the voting rights act of 1965 to give them the votes supposedly guaranteed under the constitution. despite the voting rights act and two centuries of struggle there's still a battle today. part of the republican game plan for 2012 is to make voting difficult or impossible for some of the same groups who have long suffered discrimination who are now seriously disadvantaged by new voter suppression laws that have been passed by republicans in states like ohio,

pennsylvania and florida. because voter fraud is a federal offense with serious legal consequences, even jail time, improperly cast ballots are virtually nonexistent in the united states. there are far more votes that are lost due to malfunctioning mistakes and sleight of hand by local officials that are inept or cheating than all of the cases that have been documented nationwide. in texas, for example, there is another effort to pass aggressive voter i.d. legislation, they could find only five documented incidents of voter fraud in 13 million ballots cast in the last two elections. in pennsylvania, there have been fewer than you can count on your fingers and up to a million people may be denied the right to vote because of these legal changes. millions of poor, elderly, minority and student voters don't have passports, driver's license. some don't even have birth certificates. they may face the modern version of a poll tax and

that's unconscionable. the median courts are pushing back on some of the more outrageous behavior like ohio secretary of state who was called out and forced to back down after he tried to limit early voting in counties with democrats in the majority while expanding them in republican counties. but come election day, the problems will still persist, but there is a solution. pry partisan fingers off the controls of a varied election process. we shouldn't be treating the precious right to vote as a game where partisan advantage comes at the expense of our civil rights. we -- oregon has been involved for 25 years with what is no longer an experiment but a display of a better way, vote by mail. each registered voter in the state is mailed a ballot to their residence 19 days before the election.

they are given over 400 hours to examine the ballot, they make their decisions on the issues of the individuals and they mail it back. oregonians don't worry about people gaming voting machines, closing precincts early, having long lines for working people at the end of the day or mysteriously running out of ballots at precincts that are likely to vote against you. in oregon, there's no problem with illegal voting. everybody has access to the ballot and results are processed in a timely fashion. it's shameful that after more than two centuries of struggle for the right to vote we're still playing games with people 's opportunity to exercise that hard won privileged upon which our democratic tradition rests. i will be championing the oregon solution of vote by mail to make the process simpleler, reliable and more importantly

fairer while saving money in the process. i hope these blatant attempts of discrimination backfire so that the next congress and the administration is positioned to do something about it. a country that prides itself as the oldest democracy deserves for the democratic process to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from south dakota, ms. noem, for five minutes. ms. noem: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this is the second to the last day that we will be here and be in session before we head home to our districts and we still do not have a farm bill that gives certainty to our producers and ranchers across the country. in a little over a week the 2008 farm bill will expire. while many of these programs will continue in the future for months ahead, we have an opportunity to actually save money and give our producers certainty as they begin planning for the coming years. last week i sat down and i visited with mike and lori.

they're produce near the town of heron, south dakota. they raise soybeans, beef cattle and this year was difficult for them in light of the drought situation that producers in south dakota were producing. thankfully they had programs like crop insurance that helped them manage their risk in such a difficult year. they wrote me a letter on the importance of the farm bill and i want to read a portion of that letter to you. we're experiencing a severe drought in our area this year. we put up half of the hay that we normally do, doubts are starting to dry out -- dugouts are starting to dry out. crop insurance will be extremely important to offset loss crop production and lost revenue due to poor crop conditions. crop insurance is a vital part of allowing us to stay a viable family farm, dedicated to growing a safe, affordable food supply for the growing world. they went on in their letter to describe exactly what this means to their family at home. we have a 6-year-old son and a 4-year-old daughter.

we tell them daily how important our jobs are as farmers. how we are truly feeding the world. they are taking true pride in ownership of that and passing a farm bill only helps stabilize their dreams, their futures and ours. a five-year farm bill gives us the stability to plan ahead for our operation long term. with the limited time congress has to pass the farm bill before the current one expires, i would encourage lawmakers to look to rural america and to realize how much work we can get done in a week. we know if a farm bill is made a priority there's still enough time to get one passed. thank you again for your work and we urge congress to pass a farm bill now. this past week i was traveling through the middle of our state in an area that's been hit particularly hard by the drought, stopped at a truck stop and visited with many producers that were there filling with fuel and getting supplies to head back out to the fields. you see right now in south dakota producers are planting a winter wheat crop and they're having to make the decision, do we put that crop into dry ground or do we wait and see if

we get a farm bill and crop insurance into the future so they have the certainty that they have to make sure that their risk is managed? many of those producers were electing not to plant. they were waiting to see if they could get a rain and get a program that would actually keep their family in business. some were putting it in the ground showing that they truly are brave producers who have little faith that the skies will open up and that next year will be different. i tell you and mike and lori and other producers across the state of south dakota and across the country that have been particularly hit in these tough times are looking to us here in congress to provide them certainty during this drought. the farm bill's one of the reasons that our family farmers are able to stay in business during tough years. many of the programs in the farm bill give them the stability, the certainty which in turn gives every american certainty in having a reliable, affordable food supply. you know, i ran for congress to bring more common sense to this place, to be efficient and effective leader for south dakota. we have an opportunity to get a farm bill done this year that provides a safety net and real

reforms for our producers and cost savings for the taxpayers. while the clock hasn't run out yet, i think it's important we get our work done on time and i'm disappointed it hasn't been scheduled for a vote. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: mr. speaker, today we will vote on a republican proposal to provide green cards to certain immigrants and to cut the same number of green cards available to our legal immigrants. how do we determine who gets more green cards and who gets fewer? for my republican friends that's easy. they will provide more green cards to a very narrow number of immigrants they can tolerate. smart immigrants who have been educated in u.s. colleges and universities. they will make other legal immigrants, ones they can't tolerate, pay for that increase. meanwhile, democrats have introduced bills that would provide green cards to immigrants who have been educated in u.s. colleges and universities. our democratic proposal, however, does not take green

cards away from other deserving immigrants who can't to come legally and contribute to this -- who come legally and contribute to this country. our bill recognizes the value of all of them to our economy and indeed to our future. we should not educate some of the world's most talented people in the stem field, that's science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and then send them away to work in foreign lands to compete against us. democrats strongly support providing these visas to help the u.s. economy and creating jobs, not just for immigrants but for the u.s. workers they will employ and the economic activity they'll generate. democrats want progress. we want visas for stem graduates. we'll work in a bipartisan manner with republicans to get it done. it's smart policy and it's a just policy. and there is no reason -- let me be clear -- no economic reason, no budget reason, no jobs reason to punish other immigrants because we give up stem visas. absolutely none. let me try to make it simple. let's pretend we're not talking about immigrants because any

time some of my republican friends hear the word immigrant they immediately want to punish someone. so let's say instead of immigrants we're talking about a family of three children, three honest hardworking children. one child wants to go to college to become an industrial engineer. another wants to go to college to become a math professor. the third doesn't want to go to college. let's say he wants to start a landscaping business, he wants to work with the land and gets his hands dirty. the republican plan is simple. help the kids go into college and cut the other kid off. he's out. tough luck. not smart enough for this family. the democratic plan is just simple. we need scientists, engineers and mathematicians, but we need other workers too, construction workers, machinists, chef, entrepreneurs and we need immigrants from all over the world, from every continent, including africa. everyone who works hard helps our economy, so let's be helpful to everyone. that's the democratic belief. but that's not the republican plan today. maybe we shouldn't be surprised. after all this proposal comes

from a party whose presidential nominee doesn't care about 47% of america. call it the mitt romney deadbeat doctrine, half of americans are freeloaders and maybe that's all we need to know about this republican plan. i suppose in the republican world, stem visas are for the half of america that work and the other visas are for the deadbeats that mitt romney doesn't care about like the freeloaders like your parents on social security or your son or daughter with that student loan or the pell grant. or like my parents who came from puerto rico with only an elementary school education but worked hard every day and put two kids through college and one of them in the congress of the united states. yes, those deadbeats. if my parents had needed visas to come to this country today under this new plan they would have never gotten the chance. we're changing the rules about who can and more importantly who cannot come to america. so unless you view the world through mitt romney's us versus them vision of america, there's

no reason to cut visas today, none. i want to stand up for the zoe lofgren vision of immigration, the democratic vision of immigration. we are not divided into a country where people who gather at a fancy country club and write $50,000 checks to political candidates are good and the people who stand around and serve them the food are bad. america's not half deadbeats. we're one america and we have a chance to prove it today. democrats are offering a sensible plan that doesn't divide us. it values all work from all immigrants. it achieves our common goal of creating a stem visa program, keeping more scientists, engineers right here in america, making us stronger. in mitt romney's world, if you help one person, you have to punish another. i think that's wrong. . i urge my colleagues to pass a fair and sensible plan an let's do it without punishing a single person.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy, for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i rise with a heavy heart but on behalf of a grateful nation to honor a soldier born and raised in southwestern pennsylvania who gave his life on september 14 in service to our country. this week he returned to his home in the united states where he will be laid to rest. lieutenant colonelries to ever vrabel, commanding officer of marine attack squadron 211 died in the assault in the american run base camp leather neck in hell mun province in afghanistan. it was a dess pick able attack that note only took the life of this dedicated, respected, and brave marine but also rutted in the worse loss of u.s. military aircraft since the vietnam war. but this morning i rise to my colleagues, my constituents at

home in westmoreland county and entire nation will know more about this courageous marine who commanded the marine harrier jet squadron. after graduating top of his class from norman high school where he was a starting defensive back for the norman knights, he earned his degree in civil engineering from pittsburgh's prestigious carnegie-mellon university. following his college graduation, he joined the united states marine corps and by 19 the 8 -- 1998 had become a naval aviator. a national leader he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel last summer, having received numerous military honors along the way, including a meritorious service medal, and the navy and marine corps commendation medal to name a few. in support of operation enduring freedom and operation iraqi freedom, he employed many times to serve our nation. colonel vrabel commanded the

only marine harrier squadron in afghanistan where he flew over 2,000 hours in harrier aircraft. a southwestern pennsylvania in their heart it should come as no surprise that otis was known while seated in the cockpit to listen to the steelers while flying in the skies over iraq, more than anything lieutenant colonel vrabel from a father, husband, and son. a proud dad of three children ages 11, 9, 2. otis so loved and was loved by his family. as his mother said, her son died defending all that he held dear. quote, he was the best of the best, she said. indeed, mrs. vrabel, he was. today we as a nation say thank you to lieutenant colonel vrabel and his entire family. we are so grateful for your service and your sacrifice protecting our freedom. you have made your family and

your nation better. through your sacrifice you have made america strong. through your courage you have made america proud. and many times i'm sure you soared above the clouds where you could touch the face of god, now you rest in his loving arms for eternity. thank you, kohl member. our nation thanks you as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizings the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. mr. pierluisi: thank you, mr. speaker. on november 6, the u.s. territory of puerto rico will hold a plebby site on the island's political future. voters will be asked if they want to continue the current status or to seek a new status. voters will also be asked to express their preference among the three to the current status, recognizeed legally and

politically viable by the ferble government and international law, independence, nationwood in free association with the united states, and statehood. this plebiscite. it will be the first time that island residents have an opportunity to answer yes or know to the question of whether they support the status that puerto rico has had since 1898. this question has inharnte volume in democracy where a government's legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. and this plebiscite will only include those status options identified as valid by congress and the white house. true self-determination is a choice among options that can be implemented not an exercise in wishful thinking. if a majority of voters express satisfaction with the current status, puerto rico's status

would not change at this time. likewise, if there is majority support to change the current status but not majority support for one of the three alternatives, puerto rico's current status would also continue. however, if a majority votes against the status quo and in favor of statehood, free association, or independence, congress and the president should take action that honors that choice. top democratic and republican leaders have indicated that they will take the results of this plebiscite seriously. that is as it should be. the united states is the greatest democracy in history and champion of peaceful self-determination around the world. consistent with this principle i am confident department that federal officials will respect the choice -- confident that federal officials will respect the choice made by their fellow citizens of puerto rico if they decide to change the island status. now i want to speak directly to

the men and women i represent in congress. this plebiscite will have a real impact on you, your family, and the future of the island we love. it is important that you make your voice heard and your vote count. it is well-known that i oppose the current status and advocate for statehood for puerto rico. whether it is called territory, commonwealth, or colony, the current status denies us the most fundamental rights in a democracy, the right to choose the leaders who make our national laws and the right to equal treatment under those laws. in my view, the current status is an affront to our dignity. in my office hangs a framed photo of service members from the island who have lost their lives since 2001. they are the latest in a long line of puerto rican patriots who have fought and fallen for this nation. this photo inspires me, but it also makes me sad. i cannot understand how we such

a proud people can voluntarily submit to a status that makes us second class citizens in the country that we have defended for generations. i realize that after nearly 115 years the prospect of change can be unsettling, but i also know that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. we deserve better than what we have and the time has come for us to seek a new status that will empower us to realize our full potential. among the alternatives to the current status i believe statehood is the right choice. independence and free association are worthy options, but both would place at risk our u.s. citizenship and federal support under programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security for future generations of puerto ricans. because i believe the overwhelming majority of puerto ricans are opposed to breaking our substantially weakening the strong political, social, and economic bonds that have born

between puerto rico and the united states, i think the only viable alternative to the status quo is statehood. at this critical moment in history we should aspire to perfect our union not to sever it. the current status is about second class citizenship which we should rise up to reject. independence and free association are about separation which would diminish the opportunities available to our children and grandchildren. statehood is about equal treatment. it would deliver to puerto rico and all free people deserve full voting rights, full self-government, and full equality under the law. this november i hope that the u.s. citizens of puerto rico will send the clear message to congress that they are ready to make a change. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman -- chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, i rise this morning to honor the life and memory of pennsylvania police officer bradley foxx. brad foxx was a five-year veteran of the plymouth township police department in montgomery county, pennsylvania. having grown up in my home of bucks county, officer foxx graduated from william tenet high school and went on to serve his country for 10 years in the united states marine corps. a well decorated soldier, officer foxx received among other accolades the navy and marine corps achievement medal, the combat action ribbon, and the national defense service medal. upon returning from his military service, officer foxx joined his local police force in montgomery county where he built a life for himself, his wife, lindsay, their daughter, and a second child who is on the way. on the night of thursday, september 13, the family, friends, and fellow officers of brad foxx received the phone

call they hoped would never come. officer foxx was responding to a report of a hit-and-run in his suburban philadelphia township. as he was investigating the incident, both officer foxx and his canine companion were ambushed by the suspect, an attack which left officer foxx fatally wounded. yesterday afternoon i attended the burial services for officer foxx at the washington crossing national cementtary in bucks county. the show of support from the local law enforcement community and the people of southeastern pennsylvania as a whole was inspiring and it was heartfelt. to see that in such a short lifetime this father, husband, brother, son, veteran, and police officer had touched so many lives was a testament to the kind of person that brad fox was. he dedicated his entire life to service to his community and to his country.

and should serve as an example to every one of us. every day in montgomery county and in bucks county and in communities across this great nation, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and paramedics are working to preserve the public safety. these men and women wake up every morning and head to work not knowing what dangers they may encounter during their shift. the loss of officer brad foxx serves as a somber reminder of the risks our police officers face each and every day. here in our nation's capital, just a few miles from where i stand at this very moment, is the national law enforcement officers memorial. etched into this memorial are the names of countless men and women who gave their lives in service to their communities. sadly, officer brad foxx will join that role of monor. -- honor. also carved on the memorial are quotes which capture the spirit of those honored there, including one from former

president george h.w. bush which reads. carved on these walz is the story of america. of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency and to protect a national treasure that we call the american dream. there can be no doubt of our gralttood to officer foxx and his family to the sacrifice he made and they made to keep his community a safe place to work and to live and to raise a family. mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in april of the year 2004, i rose in this chamber to speak for five minutes about my conviction that the war in iraq was a dangerous, immoral policy and it was hurting america and our national security. since then i delivered a

similar message nearly every day that it was possible when we were in session, and once the iraq war finally drew to a close, i moved on to focus on the ongoing military occupation in afghanistan which will soon be in its 11th year, costing more than 2,000 american lives and more than half a trillion dollars and counting. today is my 440th special order for five minutes, calling for an end to these wars and the safe return of our troops to their families right here at home. i'm not proud of having reached that number. i would much prefer that the speeches were no longer necessary, but since i'm retiring from the house at the end of this year, my 20th year

in congress, one of my biggest disappointments is that we haven't shown the leadership, the courage and the resolve to finally secure peace. we are still mired in this afghanistan conflict, even though the evidence is overwhelming that it's doing more harm than good, even though it's emboldening terrorists and insurgents rather than defeating them, even though it's breeding resentment of america instead of winning hearts and minds. we are still mired in this conflict even though a clear majority of the american people no longer want any part of it. i will not return to the house in 2013, so this will be one of my final opportunities to press this point. but as long as our troops

remain in harm's way and as long as this dreadful policy continues, i will continue to speak out and speak up. and i know there are proud supporters of this war on both sides of the aisle who will continue to lead the effort in congress. time and time again what i've advocated is not just an end to these wars but the beginning of a new approach to combating terrorism and keeping america safe. we need to leave with the american cooperation and compassion around the world, not american weapons and troop force. we need smart security, a plan that puts the focus on development and diplomacy. we need a strategy that gives people hope and improves their lives instead of invading and

occupying their land. this is not only the humane approach, mr. speaker, it's also the more pragmatic one, the one that will truly advance our national security goals, and it's a lot more cost-effective. helping people cuts pennies on the dollar compared to waging war. a lot of people have said to me over the years, woolsey, your problem is that you think we can have a perfect world. well, consider me guilty as charged. i don't believe there's anything wrong with idealism and ambitious goals because i'm absolutely certain that if we don't strive for a perfect world we won't ever come close to providing a safe, secure and peaceful world for our grandchildren and their grandchildren and that's our job here in congress and i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this week another american energy producing company announced plant closures and worker layoffs citing the obama administration's authoritarian regulatory regime in part as a rationale reason for closing. one is located in the fifth district of pennsylvania which i'm proud to represent. they announced a regulatory environment that's aggressively restraining the use of coal, end quote. it will result in layoffs of 1200 workers and immediate 400 jobs lost in virginia, west virginia and pennsylvania. the fact that the coal industry is facing tough times isn't

news. they have other energy competitors including natural gas, labor costs. the issue that's news worthy is the additional burden being placed on american employers during such difficult and tough economic times. the administration announced intentions to eliminate coal. our most abundant natural resource from our fuel mix with no clear plan to replace it with any effective alternative has taken a significant toll on employers and individuals across my home state. here are the several news headlines of closures and layoffs in my home district from the past several months. september 18, headline, financial resources closing eight coal mine. 400 jobs cut in virginia, west virginia and my home state of pennsylvania. august 30 headline. another round of joy workers laid off, the dairy. in august, manufacturing in franklin county, pennsylvania,

posted another round of employee layoffs. 43 most were notified they've been furloughed from their jobs. the week before that 19 others were laid off. this is the largest private sector employer in the county. february 9 headline. local responders respond to power plant closures. they have 80 workers in shawville and contributes roughly $225,000 annually in local taxes. they offer jobs not through its plant but through trucking firms which means a loss of 100 to 200 workers in the next several years. january 26 headline. first energy shutting down six sites in ohio, pennsylvania and maryland. in january, first energy announced that the new environmental regulations led to a decision to shut down six older coal powered power plants affecting more than 500 employees. coal operations are closing, forcing more workers into

unemployment as countless indirect coal jobs have been put at risk because of the president's unwavering commitment to end coal. our most abundant natural resource as a source of domestic energy. in the aftermath of all these closures and job losses in my district, along with numerous across my state and the country, it is becoming increasingly clear that this administration expects the consumers of pennsylvania to bear the costs of a poorly thought out, poorly defined and poorly explained environmental agenda. but it's not just a war on coal. it's a war on electricity and jobs. the shutting of record number of coal powered plants threatens the 270 direct and indirect coal-related jobs that help supply america with nearly half of its generated electricity and pay $36 billion in wages. the nonpartisan u.s. energy information administration has all but confirmed the president's aggressive push against coal development with a report dealing a record number

of coal fired power plants to be closed this year largely because of the burdensome regulations and other compliance costs. that's why this week the u.s. house has passed -- will pass h.r. 3049, to push back on the president's commitment to end coal as a source of domestic energy and protect the countless jobs that have been lost or put at risk as a result of his politics. h.r. 3049 includes the following package of bills -- the coal miners employment and domestic energy infrastructure protection act which bars the environmental protection agency from issuing any regulation before december 31, 2013, that would adversely affect coal mining employment. the coal reide sidual reuse and management act which has permitting programs for the storage of coal combustion residuals under the solid waste disposal act which is now primarily used to regulate the management of solid waste landfills and sewage landfills. the energy tax prevention act which prevents the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gases in

any effort to address climate change. one that prohibits the e.p.a. from issuing a new or revised water quality standard when a state standard has been approved by the e.p.a. and the transparency and regulation analysis of impacts on the nation act, or the train act, which creates an interagency committee to examine the effects of current and federal regulations on u.s. energy and manufacturing industries, u.s. global competitiveness and u.s. energy prices. again, it's not just a war on coal. it's a war on the use of carbon-based fuels, coal, oil, natural gas, which supply over 80% of our energy. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today as a proud co-sponsor of house resolution 785, condemning the hate crimes, bullying and brutal violence perpetrated against

seek americans and all acts of those americans in the united states. in the face of unrelenting and unprovoked violence it's clear that action must be taken. the sikh community has a long history of contributing to this nation. farmers, farming a third of the land and providing nature's bounty to enjoy. the very first asian american elected to the u.s. congress was a sikh american, elected in california in 1957. and sikh temples all across the country have shown their beautiful spirit by giving free food called langer, toive in the neighborhood who's hungry. and yet time and time again we see the good deeds of sikh americans met with undue violence from others. and in the wake of 9/11 this

hate spiked sharply. just days after the attacks took place as the soot still lingered over manhattan and smoke still smoldered from a field in pennsylvania, bob became the first victim of misplaced violence. a gunman shot at him and took his life. through the years the violence has not abated. last year in northern california, two elderly sikh americans were doing what they always did every afternoon, taking a walk in the neighborhood, when suddenly they were shot. they were murdered in cold blood, not for money or jealousy or revenge. they were murdered because of their turbines. and then there were the overwhelmingly shocking events of august 5 of this year in oak creek, wisconsin. the sikh community were

preparing meals for sunday. but that peace was shattered without warning at the hands of a gunman filled with hate and rage. he fired discrim natalie and without cause and when -- discriminately and without cause. since 9/11 stereotyping is still far too common. we must combat the growing wave the violence that threatens the safety and liberty of the sih community. while the f.b.i. tracks the overall number of hate crimes, it doesn't target sikhs despite that we are seeing that sikhs are singled out because of their appearance and faith. that's why this resolution denounces the violence befallen this community or calling on the department of justice to finally be documenting and quantifying hate crimes against

sikh americans. as many as three out of four sikh boys endure torment and bullying from their peers and so we're educators across the country to help end violence. and we're erging law enforcement officers in every locality to do all they can to prevent violence against this and all communities. america was founded on the principles of religious freedom, acceptance and tolerance. let's make sure that every american can live safely and in peace. let's make sure that every american is protected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr.

speaker. over the last week, we have watched as anti-american groups throughout the world have killed americans, attacked our embassies, had protests, burned the american flag, destroyed our property in many parts of the world. and these events and events that have preceded them bring up that question again, these countries that we give aid to seem to be countries that there is violence against america. . so i want to spike about the americans when they write that check, to that government, our government, that we spend all over the world. this map here is a map of countries in the world that the united states of america taxpayers gives assistance to worldwide. you'll see there are three colors. the red are colors that the united states gives foreign aid

to. you can see that's most of the countries in the world. and it is most of the countries. it is 191 countries in the world. sometimes there's 193, depending on whether those last two are really countries or not, and american taxpayers give money to 158 of them. so you see those that are in the red. the green represents countries that we give military aid to. and this few little -- excuse me blue countries, couple in europe, couple in africa, those are countries we don't give any money to. by far the minority. so you see the massive world as we know it, american moneys goes to most of it. you notice over here there's a red block in this part of the country. and i'm sure, mr. speaker, you'll recognize this massive country here, that's russia. yeah. american aid goes to russia. and did you know even though

china controls so much of our debt, american money, yes, goes to china as well. will's a list -- there's a list of countries and i ask unanimous consent to submit to the record the 158 countries that the united states gives aid to. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. so maybe we need to rethink how we do this. with all the problems we got in the united states, taxpayers write the check for countries throughout the world. and here's how we vote on foreign aid. i suspect the senate does it the same way. we put all the countries in a list, in a bill, and the state department usually smits the amount of money they would like us to give to that country, and this house votes up or down on all 158 countries. now maybe we ought to do business a little better. maybe we should vote country by country. some say, it takes too long. we are talking about american money here. it wouldn't take very long at all. i think that if we voted up or

down, country per country, most of these countries here, they are not going to get any aid from the united states. in a bipartisan way. of course probably israel would and 80% of the money spent in israel or given to israel is sent back to the united states. i think most members support israel. maybe one or two other countries, but let's vote up or down, country by country. some of these countries that we have had unrest in in the last couple weeks, like libya, like egypt, maybe we need to re-evaluate the money we send to them. at the very least what we ought to do in countries like libya and egypt and some of these other countries that are destroying american property as we speak, who are -- who have looted, and destroyed our embassies, like in egypt, we at least ought to take the money we are going to give them in aid and take a portion of it out to help rebuild the embassies that

are in that country. and pay for the property damage. and probably take even money out given to libya, pay reparations to the four americans killed in libya. let's use some common sense when we are spending money overseas and maybe we shouldn't be trying to go all over the world and play nice with people. we have had a foreign aid problem since before i was born and we continue to give money to countries in the hope that they will like us. well, how's that working for you? not too good. is the way i see it. you know, mr. speaker, we don't need to continue to support countries like pakistan. i'm astonished we still give money to pakistan. they harbored osama bin laden. they put in prison the informant that told us where he was hiding. i believe some of the money we give back stand ends up in the hands of the taliban and corrupt military governments. but yet we keep paying. now, this summer the house did vote to cut $625 million from pakistan.

but yet when the c.r. came through last week, the continuing resolution, that money is back in going to pakistan. pakistan is just one of many examples, mr. speaker. we don't need to pay these countries to hate us. we don't need to pay them, they will do it for free. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, for five minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. this week marks the united states constitution's 225th anniversary. our constitution is a product of realistic compromise. a state that's missing in this chamber. it lays out the principles for a democratic government and the rights of citizens can expect to enjoy in that government. and with the inclusion of six voting rights amendments, we have formed a more solid

democratcy. the voting rights amendment fundamentally changed our system of government. outlawing -- giving ordinary americans the right to elect their senators, and allowing the citizens of our nation's capital to vote for president and guaranteeing that all americans regardless of race, religion, gender, or age would enjoy these protections. and with these protections and these amendments we affirm the inherent values of our constitution and our democratcy. -- democracy. and the right to vote is still to this date the essential piece of our democracy. think about it. to deny an eligible voter the opportunity to vote is to undermine the very freedom that defines us as a nation. the right to vote is essential to our democracy. however while the mark of the student demonstrators and

religious leaders once drove electoral reform in the united states, a dark movement is sweeping across the countries. state lawmakers pushed by corporate interests, and driven by a cynical point of view that says we must deny other people the right to vote in order to continue to keep up our -- and we must target those groups and individuals who may not agree with our point of view and this elective process, the cynical eelective process, would keep power and we only concentrate on the people and extend the privilege to those that agree with our point of view. by making voter new laws that are now being proposed and have passed state legislatures, make voter registration more difficult and cumbersome, cut the availability of early

voting, and require voters to present current government issued identifications as a prerequisite to casting a ballot. these efforts threat the integrity of our democratic system and very targeted. the new restrictions on voting would disproportionately burden african-americans, latinos, asian americans, young voters, and americans new to the political process. plain and simple, the restrictive voter laws directed to disenfranchise poor, elderly voters and others who lack formal government issued i.d. despite the fact it is more likely an american will be struck and killed by lightning that he would impersonate another voter at the polls. we know exactly what these voter suppression laws mean. in texas the federal court recently found the texas voter i.d. law violated the voting rights act because it made it harder for african-americans and

latinos to vote. the state had evidence that conclusively shows the qualifying i.d. will fall more heavily on the poor and disproportionate number of african-americans and latinos in texas. in pennsylvania, a july 5 "philadelphia enquirer" article reported that 758,000 registered voters in pennsylvania do not have an i.d., a new state law that requirement for voting. that figure represents 9.2% of the state voters that would be stopped from voting. a report by the veterans center for justice found that allegations of widespread voter fraud often prove greatly exaggerated. moreover, these claims are frequently used to justify policies that do not -- could well disenfranchise legitimate

voters. in some states veterans' i.d. cards won't be sufficient as a photo i.d. to vote. in the last 12 months in my state of arizona, there's been an accelerated effort to suppress the vote. these new efforts represent a coordinated effort clearly designed to suppress the vote of those people who need to make sure that their government is paying attention to their needs. people of color, women, young people, some lost their lives to gain the right to vote in this nation of ours. throughout its history or country has fought to remove obstacles to voter participation, making the right to vote acceptablele to -- accessible to all eligible citizens. we cannot turn our back on that fundamental right. our legacy as a nation demands better of us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria , for five minutes. mr. austria: thank you, mr.

chairman. thank you for the opportunity to publicly recognize september as suicide prevention month. as a member of the military mental health suicide prevention caucus, my goal is to increase awareness in aid and prevention of suicide. although suicide affects thousands of americans each year, i'd like to take a moment to focus specifically on our veterans and men and women who are currently serving in our united states military. suicides are increasing at an alarming rate this year for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. recent stata shows that suicides are occurring at a rate of approximately one per day for the military. this makes suicide the second leading cause of death for our troops, surpassed only by combat. the army in particular has seen a 22% suicide increase when comparing the first seven months in both 2011 and 2012.

these are not just numbers and statistics. these are real soldiers and real families impacted by this growing tragedy. the army in particular has seen, again an increase in this, and this increase became very personal for me again last weekend when i attend add memorial dedication -- attended a memorial dedication for lance corporal bobby wily. he was a lima company marine and son of my classmate and friend. as a result of his death, a loving family and nation grieve with loss. on behalf of bobby and his family, i stand before you today to briefly discuss this growing trend and associated symptoms as well as highlight prevention efforts within my district and nationwide by both the department of defense and veterans affairs. more than two million troops have served in the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and that's a lot of people who have seen war

up close and personal. it can affect some of them adversely when they come back home. in fiscal year 2009 alone, 1,868 veterans of these wars made suicide attempts. posttraumatic stress disorder, unemployment rate tipping 12% for our veterans and a loss of the military camaraderie, many veterans report feeling lifeless upon returning home. we are aware of three conditions to many of the suicides of our veterans. they are posttraumatic stress disorder, ptsd, traumatic brain injury, t.b.i., and depression. we know the veterans with these three medical conditions are at higher risk of succumbing to suicide behavior. as friends and family members of our veterans and those serving our country, these -- there's some things we can do.

first recognize the symptoms that could lead to serious problems. understand where and how to get assistance while still part of the military and know the availability of treatment after service. as a member of the veterans affairs subcommittee, my colleagues and i on both sides of the aisle have had the opportunity to meet and discuss some of these very important issues. and i'm pleased with secretary of the v.a. shinseki's resent outreach efforts such as stand by them and side by side. the purpose of the joint d.o.d. and b.a. stand by them campaign and public service announcement, side by side, is to increase awareness with focus on support networks for military members. these are key components required for resolution. those closest to the military member can often see a signal of distress before the member recognizes it himself or herself. the quicker the detection, the quicker the treatment.

yesterday i joined back in my home district, the director and dr. knapps at the v.a. medical center to bring awareness to suicide prevention month. with a large geographic responsibility in my district, the dayton v.a. medical center provides services to veterans in 16 counties. during the joint press conference the v.a. -- at the v.a. we announced the ongoing effort in the promotion of the v.a. and d.o.d. program. and i know communities across our nation are doing similar awareness educational programs. . as our young member men and women are exposed to stressful situations in combat, including death, we cannot look the other way and hope that these issues disappear. the reality is we are faced with a growing number of ptsd,

depression, suicide within our military and veterans. this is a real problem, and if we can alleviate one of the symptoms and causes of sued side, ptsd, we may set a change in the current trend line before a problem becomes systematic across our fighting force. let me say as these members in our grateful communities to wish these brave men and women to return, we must do whatever possible to help them get the assistance they need. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, for five minutes. without objection. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate a proud milestone in the history of the great state of new mexico. this year marks the centennial anniversary of the land of enchantment. while filmmakers have spent years documenting the history and beauty of new mexico, sharing the importance of

stories and history of tradition and kings of power, stories and tales don't by raoux doll foe, captured by georgia o'keefe. new mexico has a long and rich heritage that's rooted in a shared history of a diverse population. a history that respects diversity and language, a land whose state constitution was drafted and adopted in both english and spanish. and while santa fe, the city of faith, holds the distinction as the oldest capital city in the country, celebrating 400 years last year, statehood came later in 1912 when a territory known for its beautiful scenery, natural wonders and pristine landscapes was admitted into the union as the 47th state. new mexico is blessed with rich culture and landmarks. chacko canyon, the blue gorge, the plaza in santa fe. thousands of visitors each year travel to learn of the unique traditions and spirit that make

new mexico such a special place with blue skies, sunsets and sunrises and starry nights you won't find anywhere else in the world. the land of enchantment is home to a diverse population that can trace its roots back to spanish, mexican and native american cultures amongst others. as home to one of the richest indigenous tribal population in the united states, new mexico is proud of the influences and contributions of the 19 pueblo nations, two apache nations and navajo nations. they share a common bond of calling new mexico home, has served as a source of strength for our state as the influence of art, arc trecture and agriculture can be felt to this very day. during the past 100 years, new mexico has a proud tradition of service to our country. in world war ii, navajo code talkers contributed to the victory for the allied forces while many native sons of new mexico sacrificed in the battle of baton.

in the korean war, one was awarded for a medal of honor for his distinguished service. most recently, sergeant petri had a medal. in every war they've answered the call of duty when they were needed most. new mexico has also served our nation as a center for scientific innovation and research. los alamos laboratory has been a home to a number of scientific endeavors that has been important to our nation. mr. speaker, we're reminded how special this beautiful land we call home is. as a native new mexican, it is with great pride in our past and hope for our future that i come to this floor to recognize the enduring contributions of new mexicans during the course of our state's history. a special love for our land and water helped shape our lives. a land of faith and family, culture and tradition and, mr.

speaker, the best chili found anywhere in the world. ours is an american story, one passed from one generation to the last, the best coming from our elders. and when they send me off on any journey when i depart from home, may god bless you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bon meche, for -- ms. bonamici, for five minutes. mr. bonner: i ask unanimous consent to -- ms. bonamici: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bonamici: i have done a summary of the work we're doing here in congress and then opened the floor for questions from and discussions with my constituents.

without fail in every town hall meeting at least one person would ask about the partisan ranker and the grit lock that has come to characterize washington. they would ask me, can you tell us something that's bipartisan that you've done, something where you worked together, some achievement that everyone's agreed on? now when responding to them, i often discussed a piece of legislation that's very important to the debate on budget priorities and the so-called fiscal cliff. that's the sequestration transparency act. this bill passed the budget committee by voice vote and was later approved in the house with only two in opposition. after the senate passed it with unanimous consent, the president signed it into law. this is truly a bipartisan effort. a statement by almost every one of us working together that were concerned about the impact that sequestration might have on our constituent. and an effort to get more information about the true harm that that sequestration will

cause. now following the administration, the recent report dealing those cuts that would come under sequestration, i am even more concerned than before. and my constituents are concerned and i know constituents all across this country are concerned as well. mr. speaker, there's bipartisan concern about the impact that sequestration might have. and yet we haven't been able to come to a bipartisan consensus to avoid it. we've identified a problem. now we must identify a solution. this should be a balanced solution. working together. and i look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to arrive at that solution. it's a solution for my district in oregon, for all of the great state and importantly for all of this great nation. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her

time. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 today. >> this as politico also reports mitt romney's handlers are creating a rescue plan for his campaign. we take you live now to a house financial services committee hearing on the financial services industry with the

director of the consumer financial protection agency, richard cord ray, he's on your screen right now. this started at 10:00 eastern. >> the results of that as a college cost indicator that people can get a sense when they get that offer -- sometimes people fall in love with the house and they forget about the mortgage. similarly you can fall in love with the school and forget to think about the bill. this will be much easier for them to compare what kind of offers they are getting from different places, what the cost will be. and we believe it will help people make more informed, better choices. we also were working a lot of compaints from people who -- complaints from people too late to inform them they already went through, not your son necessarily, but people of the age and older, who do have problems now repaying their loans about what their rights are, what their responsibilities are, what their options are. we are working very closely with the department of education on that. it's been a great partnership for us with secretary duncan and

his staff. >> my time is up. i would be interested if your staff could provide any information on that. i was one of the authors or pushers for that inclusion in dodd-frank. not just because of my son, but because of the sons and daughters of other people i knew. >> i would be glad to come talk with you. sure. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. you testified before our subcommittee on january 15 and during that testimony you said you are committed to being accountable and using your resources wisely and carefully. you also repeatedly stated in correspondence that you are committed to promoting a culture of transparency and accountability. to date the responses that we

have been receiving from the cftb haven't proved that out. one of the things that dodd-frank requires is that you provide a financial operating plan and forecast to o.m.b. i understand that you did not do that. you gave them a budget justification form, which is different than a financial operating plan. additionally, the -- we have asked you to furnish us performance measures and an overall strategic plan for the agency. as of this date we have not received that. we also ask you to give us -- you mentioned the word detailed process in determining of bureau's employment needs and as the gentleman asked you the other day what size of the organization you felt like it would be, you still have not funnished us with any kind of information on what the process is to determining what the employment needs of the agency

are. i could go on. there's a number of things that we have asked you that should be an integral part of any agency or any business that's operating, especially one with half a billion dollar deficit -- budget. here's the question. is it just you don't want to funnish that information? or it's just not a part of the process is? you don't have these documents? i'm trying to get a handle on it if it's just lack of transparency or you just don't have these documents. can you elaborate on that? >> sure. thank four the chance to address the issue, congressman neugebauer. i did read your piece in the "wall street journal." a number of things, again, it's important to recognize that we did not exist as an agency until last year. at the outset we weren't going to have the same kind of full documentation as other agencies do that have existed for decades

or some cases over a century, but we are on our way there and getting there. in terms of responsiveness to your request, it's my understanding that we have at least five times responded to requests with more information that you have asked for, especially as it's been clarified to us what information you want. as the specific issues you raised, our budgeting documents are growing larger and more fulsome each time in the process. this is the first time through for me as director, i only became director as you recall, in january, and i believe that we are well on our way to doing the kinds of things you would want us to be doing around the budget process. as for performance plans, i know that we have been working and i have seen drafts and worked on drasts of our performance plan under the gyp a that will be coming out shortly. i think you'll find as we go you got -- i think you have already seen initially you have very little information. the first time we wethreent

these things 30 time at the bureau and hadn't built up the expertise. the next time it was more. this next time it will be more yet. but we are happy and committed to working with you to try to make sure that you're satisfied, that you're getting the kind of information you want. i understand as of today you perhaps are not satisfied, but i think that you will be over time and we are getting there. we did get a clean audit, i want to note for the record, from g.a.o., our first time through. they are back to see us again and we have our inspector general from the federal reserve who is working over matters with us, and we have congress -- congress has provide ised us with yet another outside audit which also was clean. so we are trying to be careful about these processes. i take them seriously and i take them personally, but in terms of getting the information that you need to be satisfied, we are working hard at it and we will have more as we go and we'll be happy to continue to be in touch with your office about making sure -- >> i look forward to that. i have one last question i want to follow up on my friend, mr.

hensarling, from texas, on this term abusive. here's the question. if you -- your agency determines that a bank or nonbank financial entity is engaging in, quote, what you deem is an abusive product or abusive practice, what is the recourse for that bank or for that financial institution if they don't like your decision? >> sure. one, this could come up i guess in two different context, one would be an examination of the institution. if we were to find something that we deemed to comply with congress' definition, which again is law of the land on what abusive means. we would have a working back and forth with the institution. there might be disagreement about that. we would discuss it. try to clarify it. it is not our intention to try to ding institutions on things where it's not very clear what the law is or what the law says. in gray areas, that's not really worth our time or theirs. but as i say often things that

you might consider to be abusive are also unfair or deceptive, which is much clearer under the law. and that may be where the discussion would center. it also could come up in the context of an enforcement action or investigation, if that's so the company would have every opportunity or the individual to raise their concerns. we have a is what we call a nora process, if we are considering taking an action they have an opportunity to come to us and explain why we should not or don't necessarily understand the facts or law correctly and we take account of that before deciding whether to proceed. then of course if we were overreaching or getting it wrong, courts might well tell us that and cut us back. we have not had any of those occasions thus far. we hope that we would not, but we will see as we go. we are trying to be reasonable and yet firm in our understanding that we are there to enforce the law. >> thank you. ms. mccarthy.

>> thank you. thank you for your testimony. it's been very interesting. especially being that it's such a young agency and the amount of work you have done in the short period of time. one of the things that we were interested in is that your agency so far has issued two notices for comment to proposed rules aiming at protecting mortgage borrowers. with regard to the servicing proposed rules you have included a provision that requires services to make good faith efforts and contact the delinquent borrowers and inform them of their options to avoid foreclosure. and i was just wondering how do you define good faith effort? because i have to tell you that we, and i'm sure many members of congress are going through this, where so many of our constituents are calling us

because they get the foreclosure notice and they don't know what to do, and they then call us back to basically say we have been trying to work with the bank. we don't understand what they are trying to tell us. or because there are different programs out there can you help us? and we are very lucky, we have a good relationship with a number of our community bankers. one of the things that we found probably the best solution is for the customers to really sit down with the loan person so they can be a face to face. i was wondering if you ever considered at the agency has ever considered a face to face as a means of contacting -- once you make the contact with the borrower. let's talk about this. because over the phone sometimes it's very difficult or even to be honest with you with some of the papers i have seen my constituents bring in and read,

i'm sorry. i sit on this committee. we have been working on this issue for a long time. you need to be a lawyer. so you can understand where the confusion is coming from. most of these people, they want to keep their homes. they want to do whatever they can, but obviously they are caught into the economical problems that this country has been facing, and i still believe very strongly that until we settle this housing issue across this nation, that's one of the things that is dragging our economy down. i was just wondering what your response would be to that. >> my response, congresswoman, to that i would agree with you. i think housing has been one of the single biggest obstacles to a faster economic recovery. i think that's well documented now. i think that's undeniable. everyone is working toward more improvement and no one more than

the private sector, frankly. in terms of the questions you raised about mortgage servicing, i believe that the community bank and credit union model on this is exactly as you describe. it is very often a face-to-face process. typically a lot of those institutions do keep their loans in their own portfolio. so no one sells involved. there isn't some contracted mortgage servicer who may not have an actual relationship with that customer, and it is much easier to work through the problems in that setting. that's the traditional model, and it's a good model, and it works well. the lender and borrower both have a stake, they talk it thrue, they find a way to go forward. what's happened in this industry is there's a lot of high volume providers, and in many cases servicing rights may have been bought and sold and go on to someone who never has had a relationship with that individual customer and it may be several years before they start having a problem making payments.

that kind of communication has not occurred very well or very effectively. frankly there's been just to be blunt about it, there's been poor customer service by a lot of mortgage servicers. there's just no other way to describe it. our rules will help to improve this situation. they provide for continuity of contact. early intervention, new record keeping and document management procedures, all of which should improve this. none of this is a surprise or mystery to people in the industry. it's just a question whether they are willing to put in the time and effort to do it. and whether we should mandate face-to-face meetings in all instances that feels a little like we would be micromanaging processes maybe too much. i would be happy to have our staff discuss with your staff thoughts along those lines. we tried to draw a balance in these rules. they are out for noticing public comment right now and we'll

finalize them in january. >> my time's up. sorry. >> i thank the gentleman. now the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman. million cordray thank you for return -- mr. cordray thank you for returning to the hill to testify. certainly appreciate your willingness to submit to congressional oversight. i want to follow up on my colleague from texas, mr. neugebauer's, line of questioning as well as mr. hensarling's line ever questioning about the term -- of questioning about the term abusive. the concern -- you answer this, mr. neugebauer's question, but you outlined that this term will largely be determined by enforcement action. that is the concern i hear from industry is that you are going to wait until you take an enforcement action in order to understand what the definition

of abusive is. it would be proper for you to outline what those terms are before you take an enforcement action. that concern, that sort of concern by the industry, as to their level of uncertainty about your agency, and about the bureau as it currently stands. so i ask you to consider that. the question i have at hand is about simplified mortgage disclosures. my colleague, mr. green of texas, and i wrote legislation trying to put in place a one-page mortgage disclosure form. i appreciate the fact that you took this up first on your watch. again the concern i have, though, is the construct of it as chairman bachus outlined, when you say you have a

three-page loan estimate at the beginning and five-page long disclosure form at the end, it becomes overly cumbersome and simply adds to the stack that folks have in closing or refinancing. we had someone testify and he even conceded like i have conceded that i didn't read the full stack. so people are left with a lot of major questions even when they make this huge closing with all these enormous mandates. so can you get to a one-page mortgage disclosure? and can you simplify the regs that you put out? >> thank you, congressman mchenry. in further discussions we have had around these issues, and i recall you had worked on legislation on this actually several years before it came in

vogue, we are working, as i said, to simplify the two forms congress has asked us to do this. they had asked agencies to do this before. it was not easy. there were different statutes and they overlapped and we are well on our way to simply filing those forms. it's still a hard -- it's a hard piece of work and you may be can appreciate it the most if you tried to create the short form that speaks to the things that need to be spoken to but doesn't get overly long. our proposals to date are shorter than what existed before. it is not accurate to try to make something so simple when it isn't so simple. but it's an ongoing project for us. in terms of the fact that there's still a huge stack of materials, we dug into that and looked carefully and what there is. much of it is required by state law. unless we are going to sort of preempt state law that says you have to have a deed and you have to have different --

>> we have had that -- some of those issues that result in the magna charta. but the result -- important thing is the people have the essential information. >> that's right. >> what their payment is, interest rate is. >> that's what we are trying to do with our form. frankly we have had this all out for lots of public input and happy to get input from your office if you want to have us look again at what you had -- >> what specific elements need to be reformed so that we can reduce that stack and make sure consumers have the proper information? >> although my point is as to the stack a lot of it is state law. not correctable by this congress unless you are simply going to preempt a lot of state property law. a lot is imposed by the lenders themselves out of this sort of defensive medicine type approach to -- >> my time is short. that's why i'm trying to ask about tla and respa that are

both federal laws. i conceded with you that much is state law and much is old as the magna charta. i'm talking about the things that we can control. >> yes. that's our -- that's what we are doing is trying to simplify that as much as possible and that proposal is out for comment now. we'll be finalizingle it next year. and again we are happy to hear from everybody on that project. >> i'll follow up with you in written form. that's not much of an answer. i'm trying to ask for specifics of what can be reformed. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now the gentleman from new york, mr. meeks, is recognized for five minutes. mr. meeks: thank you, mr. chairman. we thank you for the work you are doing. i have just a few questions of issue that really have come before my office from a number of constituents and i'd just like to get some of your viewpoint.

one of the first is, of course, dealing with many of our service members. we had a number that come by the office and they have -- they are in very difficult financial challenges and seem to be prime victims from predatory lenders. one had told me about individuals being outside of the military base itself. and giving him what he thought was an offer that was too good to be true. and telling him sometimes when it's too good to be true it's because it is. i know that there is a new bureau dealing with service member affairs. so i was wondering what you can tell us in regard to how this office has been helping and what they can do and how maybe i can direct some of my constituents to the services of those in the military. >> sure. thank you, congressman, for asking about that part of our

office. that's been really a great success our office of service member affairs and a lot is due to the fact that assistant director petraeus is in charge of it. she has tremendous credibility through the military -- throughout the military across the country, rank and file and leadership. she goes out and brings back issues that she learns about from service members and their families and increasingly from veterans as well. and she gets a response from department of defense, department of veterans affairs at wanting to solve those problems. the permanent change of station order guidance that we gave, a number of you served in the military and can think back to what you were actively on duty and the challenges it can create economically for you and your families. people get permit change of station order, they have to move. they don't have any choice. that's part of their army duty or navy or whatever--whichever branch of the service. but they may not be able to sell their home. they may have to decide between leafing their family there

because they are not able to sell it. it's under water or taking a huge loss which they can't afford. some hard choices that maybe civilians don't typically face. and the guidance we provided now makes that a qualifying hardship for the program and some other government programs that help people get mortgages modified. that's an advance. there have been any number of those types of stories that i can tell. people can get in touch with our service member office either through our website or consumer finance.gov or calling our line and working through that. and we welcome that input. we have been very actively working on behalf of service members and trying to address their special concerns. >> thank you very much. we'll be in touch with that. let me -- in the time i have left let me ask another question. we went through the financial crises and what caused a lot of the larger companies and the big

companies were the major ones. we have our smaller institutions that still very actively involved in the local communities, etc. and i know that when we put in -- when congress granted the cftb, the power to exempt various or certain financial institutions. my question is, down the line, do you foresee is the cftb creating a rule that would exempt some of the smaller financial institutions, some of the community banks, credit unions, things of that nature, what's your vision there? viewpoint there? >> that's something i have promised we'll think about with every single rule. the first rule we finalized on the remittance transfers discussed earlier we ended up putting in a threshold below which you do not have to comply with the rule that will exempt a large number of community banks

and credit unions. we are going -- considering that. we have that in our proposal on mortgage servicing. we are considering it on some of the other rules as well. i firmly believe, i said it before, i'll say it again, that community banks and credit unions and the models, traditional customer service model they bring to their work, did not cause the financial crisis. we would have been far better off if their market share hadn't been robbed before the crisis by some of the irresponsible competitors. and we are -- we'll be better off eventually to the extent that they are restoring their place in the market. we want to encourage and promote that and we will look to do that as we write rules. >> thank you, director. yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. now the distinguished gentlewoman from illinois, the chairwoman of the insurance and housing committee, mrs. biggert, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director cordray, i think i want to continue a little bit on the

way that said before about respa and tla. it seems that dodd-frank failed to provide the cfpb with authority to merge the statutes. and i know we worked to try and get them together as they were working on that so that they didn't come up with a disparate in -- disparity in those statutes but that happened. there seems to be a conflict between the statutes and their application or policy goals. can you or your staff suggest legislative language that would resolve the differences, the conflict between the two statutes? should they be merged? >> maybe, congresswoman, help me understand what i was not clear on in congressman mchenry's question before. what congress did in the reform

law they said that the forms that applied, the disclosures that apply to mortgage transactions at application and again at closing, those needed to be merged and consolidated and if possible streamlined because it was just too confusing for people to get two different things with someone different purposes overlapping. that's the project we are working on and we are resolving. congress did not, though, push together the truth in lending act and the real estate settlement procedures act. they are very different statutes and have different objectives. the truth in lending act has to do with the accuracy of disclosures and forthcoming nature of disclosures around different types of consumer financial lending. and credit. the real estate settlement procedures act has to do with what we are viewed as problematic issues and practices around real estate closings and therefore they are actually quite distinct. they do overlap until this area of mortgage disclosures and that's where congress has asked us and really directed us to try

to clean that up and that's what we are trying to do. but beyond that i don't at this point have suggestions on ways in way you -- which you should change rest pa -- respa or tla. i would be happy to work with you about thoughts you may have. i don't regard the statutes themselves as a problem. >> then you don't think they have to be merged? >> the two statutes? i don't think that would be productive, although i'm always open-minded on legislative matters. if there's something you want to look at, we are happy to look at it as well. >> i would like to and we can do that in the future. thank you. another question is that the respa-tla rule creates uncertainty regarding who prepares and delivers the final disclosure to the consumer the

proposed rule by permitting the lender to deliver the final disclosure removes the independent third party closing agents from the settlement process. even in illinois there is a state law that requires that any closing there be a real estate attorney also. what was the intent of removing this independent check at the closing table? >> congresswoman, one of the issues kind of left unresolved to the extent that the fgs reform law -- financial reform law directed us to merge the tla and rspa disclosures for mortgages was who would provide certain pieces of that at the closing table, whether it be the set manyment agent or the lender. and the lender had more

responsibility for some of the things under the truth in lending act and the settlement agent under rspa. we have not at this point decided that issue. we are not trying to--we are kind of weary about trying to impose a model on the market. certainly feel the right is, clearly, the two would work together because they tend to bring different sources of information to ultimately what needs to be done to get you your mortgage. that's all out for noticing comment now. we are hearing from people, some of the same questions you are raising today. we are hearing what they think thinking through that. we will do that before we finalize. any thoughts that you or your staff have about it you want us to know, we are happy to hear them. >> when are you talking about, is this from the testing that you are doing on the mortgage disclosure form for consumers and how they react to changes?

>> that testing is more around the effectiveness of the disclosures. whether consumers understand them or whether they are confused by them. the issue you are raising is more of a practical problem of who on the industry side, the provider side, is responsible for which pieces of the closing. that's always been an issue that the settlement agents and lenders have tended to work out between the two of them. and it's something we think they should continue to work out between the two of them, but we are hearing from people who have different points of view on this. >> that's right. i would like that we would meet and discuss that further because i'm really concerned that the mortgage participants, especially small businesses, may be shut out of the mortgage origination process all together. i thank you for your answers. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentlewoman. now the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. cordray, i'd like to contain line of questioning on the

mortgage servicing end, i'm over here. two significant events have happened lately to help struggling homeowners. i would think that there are just too many homeowners losing their homes unnecessarily. there's help out there, they are not getting it. i wanted to know what connection you had with these and how you are working with them. one has been the settlement of the multistate with the large banks. there was a settlement. bank of america, wells fargo, j.p. morgan chase, cityy, and allied, these five banks. and individuals that held their mortgages would be entitled to very significant help. have you looked into this? what relationship would you have with it? how are you making sure those consumers are getting here? there have been some debate whether or not they can -- this money can be used to write down principal for example, which is

very much needed. what is the assessment of that situation right now? >> our involvement, congressman n. this issue is in particular we now have authority over mortgage servicers. we have authority to write rules on mortgage servicing that apply to banks and nonbangs. those will be final in january. we have the ability to examine mortgage servicers. we have been doing that with different servicers. we are in the process of doing that across the industry. that's been insightful for us and it will lead to corrective action in a number of instances where they have not been up to snuff. likely. we have enforcement authority which in appropriate cases will be utilized as needed to make sure people are following the law.

>> have there been any problem areas there? any complaints? is it moving smoothly by major banks cooperating? >> i think our processes are moving relatively smoothly. again we are a new agency i'm sure things will be smoother several years from now than at the outset. in the mortgage servicing industry, things have not moved smoothly over the past five, six years. consumers i'm sure your office hears from them as much as we do have been very dissatisfied with the level of customer service, accessibility, even to get somebody on the phone when you get them their paperwork whether there is continuity, whether they don't lose the paperwork. all the frustrations people have . it's a troubled area but it's not necessarily the case that every mortgage servicer is having deep problems with their process. some have cleaner portfolios -- >> let me ask you. my time is slipping wavement i

wanted to get another one in. one other program we put together here, this very committee, was a good help where it was really needed, which are those people who have lost their -- who are holding on to their homes barely but have lost their jobs. so we put forward what we call the hardest hit program. and there have been a lot of problems with that. largely because some states have 45% approval rate, some have a 10% approval rate. and i'm wondering, this is a program, many people do not even know it exists. where an individual lost his job and this money is there to help them to pay up to 18 months of their mortgage. and they have not gotten that information. what are you doing to help some of these states move along to more aggressively market the program? target the unemployed? and make sure that works. that's something that could directly keep people in their

homes. particularly in view of the fact that money will run out in four years. >> i recall when i was attorney general of ohio and these funds were first made available, finding myself frustrated as time was passing and they were not being drawn down. i think states, in the state of ohio, that's going better. we don't actually administer the hardest hit funds. i'm not expert on that. but i do know it has been an issue and problem around the country. some states have drawn virtually none of their funds. others, some more. there has been various resistance from various quarters. i don't understand it well enough to opine helpfully to you on it. >> that might be somewhere where we need some extra help. you are absolutely right. many of these states have been -- let me get to one other point on the regulatory front. and the regulatory burden. we hear some complaints from your agency about the regulatory, the overworked

paperwork, the outdated, unnecessary, unduly burdensome regulations. what are you doing to address this issue? >> we launched -- we have heard that, too. and i have invited that kind of comment. we launched a streamlining initiative earlier this year to ask broadly. people from everywhere, including industry and other stakeholders who typically have this complaint, identify for us some of the types of provisions that you think could be eliminated or modified or burden of them reduced without hurting consumers or you think are not really delivering their value. we got a number of suggestions. some of which we are definitely following up on. one of which was the credit card ability to repay effect on spouses who do not work outside the home. which is one, as i said earlier, we are going to be taking up

imminently. there are others we will pursue. i think that that was fruitful for us. we did fine. a lot of the burden people complain about has nothing to do with the consumer bureau and the financial industry it's the money laundering requirements and the bank secrecy act, neither of which we administer. but there are things that did come within our purview that we will proceed on and i think that's been helpful and we'll be able to show the people who complain about that that we are willing to take up and work on some of the issues that he raise, which i want to do. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from missouri, mr. luke mitre, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cordray, on -- i sent you a letter along with i think 30-some other of my colleagues with regards to the rule that you promulgated and we received back this week your letter and we thank you for that.

one of the questions that i have that -- in the letter here it says that you understand that compliance may present challenge some institutions subject to the rule and met with some providers to hear the concerns they may have. are you considering any changes as a result of those meetings that you had with those providers? and if so, what changes to the rule are you anticipating? >> so there's sort of been three stages of this. the first is as i said earlier congress passed a law. it is the law of the land. there are now new protections and new procedures for remittance transfers. if the consumer bureau didn't exist, that would still be the law of the land. the consumer bureau was the agency designated to implement that law by adopting rules. those were out for public noticing comment. we had many discussion was many parties about them before finalizing them. we finalized those in february.

at the same time we proposed a supplement to consider whether to exempt institutions below a certain threshold from having to comply with the rule because it was more burdensome than makes sense for them. we did adopt that threshold in august. and there are many, many, i believe it's thousands of institutions, exempt from the rule but it still covers most of the consumer market. >> have you through your discussions, have you found surveying the entities going to be affected by this, have you found a large group of them that are just going to quit providing the service? >> we hear different things about that. and we are trying to understand it more. the third states that i didn't get to, congress passed a law. we did issue a rule that is now settled. there is some opportunity for us to perhaps clarify and provide guidance around some of the points that are being raised. but unless we are going to

reopen notice and comment rule making and redo the process, we are a little more constrained now. we are having discussions with various providers who are expressing concerns to us about what we can do to try to address those concerns. we will do as much as we can. we also recognize we need to provide clearer and simpler guidance to a lot of the smaller institutions. and we are going to be coming out with a small provider guide to the rule which will be much more accessible and in plain english than what's written in the federal register. that's coming out soon. and we are going to continue to work with institutions to try to give them guidance and ease the implementation process as much as mob. -- as much as possible. >> if you see there is a constriction of services due to the number of folks that are going to be doing this, are you -- would you look at raising this number from 100 to 500 or 1,000? >> we just went through a process on that.

we can do and redo and redo process ises forever and then people complained about regulatory uncertainty. we went through a process. we heard -- >> let me interrupt just a second. the rule is there, the law is there to solve a problem. >> correct. >> if the problem -- if there is no problem at the lower end of institutions that have very little transactions, then that problem -- then we need eliminate that because we are creating a problem. >> that's what we did. you do not have to worry about it. can you throw it in the trash. >> well, if we find, though, that as a result of constricted services, people getting out of it, and the folks that are getting out of it are not our problem folks, you not think we need to reconsider that at least? >> what the law requires is that for the first time now consumers are entitled to certain protections in this area. if errors are made, there would

be an error resolution process. they are entitled to know what money is going to be received on the other end and not just toss their money into a black hole and not know -- >> identify understand where you're going. ok. you mentioned the word error. right now the way the rule is written the error can be assigned to the individual providing -- the provider correctly delivers the funds but the sender gives them the wrong account number. is that not correct? >> i think that's one of the issues we are working through with different institutions that are raising the issue with us. i think it's somewhat overstated. >> how can you overstate that? >> because i think that -- >> either you count it as an error or don't. >> shall i explain? >> sure. >> counting it as an error then has to do with whose responsibility it is to sort out whether it's an error or not. that's the first issue.

and congress provided, probably makes some sense, that better the institutions sort out how the error occurred than the individual be given the burden of doing that. once that is done, the fact that an error was made by the consumer is something that can be worked on back and forth between the institution and the consumer. there's some concern i have heard expressed there might be fraud here. the consumer makes an error deliberately and an institution is somehow on the hook for sorting through that error. nothing in our rule prevents the institution from suing consumers that aestimated to defraud them and get relief. but -- that attempted to defraud them and get relief. but there are some ways that can be discussed effectively in 30 and 60 minutes bites. we would be happy to talk to your staff about them. we are having some of the 15eu78 kinds of discussions with the providers and we are looking to see if there is any guidance to

give. >> i see my time is up. it opens a huge liability situation for the providers. whenever you deem something an error which is not anything that they have control over. i think we have a huge problem there that needs to be at least looked at and worked with industry in some degree. >> with respect the notion that consumers are able -- there is aner-e roar, are going tozz sue you and find an attorney to bring a case based on that i think is vastly overstated but we are -- we do not want to foment litigation and we are having discussions to see what we can do to resolve and address some of these concerns and we'll continue to do that. we are happy to have them with you and your staff as we go. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. now the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. federal government does an awful lot to try to support the home market, especially in this

difficult economic times. we do so at considerable cost and considerable controversy. we have a home mortgage deduction and property tax deduction. we have taken over fannie mae and freddie mac, considerable controversy there. and some risk to the federal government. and now the federal reserve has its qe-3 program which is designed to support home prices and allow people who might otherwise not be able to buy a home to qualify for a home with a lower payment, lower interest rate. so everybody in the federal government is sacrificing their other goals in order to try to make sure that we can turn around the home prices and provide for homeownership. your agency is now crafting rules defining qualified mortgages which will govern how housing finance works in the future and initial reports indicate that the rules you are

considering are very conservative and could restrict the number of creditworthy borrowers that are able to obtain mortgage financing. how do you reconcile your agency taking an action which would depress home price, reduce the number of people that could qualify for a loan and become homeowners, while everybody else in the federal government is paying the price, enduring the controversy, shouldering the cost to accomplish the exact opposite goal? >> so the short answer, sir, is that's not what we are doing. >> that's a good answer. >> the longer answer is that this is not a proposal. the only proposal public on the table is one that did not originate with us. it originated with the fed and it is a difficult area and the proposal raise add number of questions that it did not yet seek to resolve but sought to give broad input and comment from people which i think was sensible at that time. we have now received that comment. we received further comment. we received incessant comment on

this because it's very important to people. and the question you raised is one that has been raised to us numerous times and i think it's fair to say we are getting the message. that if we draw the qm circle too narrowly, we could ourselves be responsible for further causing troubles in the mortgage market. we do not intend to do that. we recently reopened this proposal for more noticing comment because we got some new data that gives us a better handle on what's actually happening in the mortgage market. in this period where it is somewhat unnatural phase. and it's difficult to predict where it's going. i think that people will be satisfied in the end that we have taken account of that concern and we mean to do so. i hear you say it again today reminds me once again how important this is. >> i thank you for your attention to that. one part of these rules goes back and forth between

rebuttable presumption and safe harbor. and of course the economy works best when the rules are clear and where the regulators are in touch with the markets enough to know when some new abuse occurs and then they can quickly change the rules. if you can't draw clear rules and you can't modify those rules as necessary, then we are stuck with litigation system. they rules and rules you can't rely on and then you can -- you have litigation liability and loss to consumers and the economy. is your agency leaning toward the rebuttable presumption and do you think you can write a rule that provides a safe harbor so that businesses can be certain that if they comply

they'll avoid the liability and won't need to pay for the liability insurance. >> so i would say -- i found myself saying in my head, amen to your comments about this. as a former attorney general now as the head of a federal agency that has among other responsibilities law enforcement functions, gray areas of the law are not appreciated. they are difficult. they are difficult for people trying to comply. they are difficult for us. i think we understand here that if we write rules that are murky that's going to be essentially an abdication of our responsibility because they'll end up getting resolved in courts through litigation. it will take years and be very expensive and the uncertainty will linger all during that process. we understand and i think we are making real efforts here to draw very bright lines about what qualifies or doesn't qualify you. the safe harbor versus rebuttable presumption comparison is a little bit of a mirage because even the safe

harbor isn't safe. you can always be sued whether you meet the criteria or not to get into the safe harbor. so it was a bit of a marketing concept there. i think the more important point is are we drawing bright lines that will discourage and minimize the prospect of litigation? >> let me just tell you that all the sea captains i talked to really want a safe harbor. >> if somebody said to me safe harbor or anything else i would go for a safe harbor, but i don't think it's truly safe and i think that oversimplifies the issue. the issue here is minimizing litigation cost and the risk of that that would lead people out of this market. we are definitely to try to do that. >> thank you. the growning wasn't at the joke. >> it was actually at the joke. >> thank you. let me pick up from there. and i very much appreciate your time today, mr. cordray, one of the frustrations i think some of the members are having is that

we hear there's 27 oversight meetings, great, how much oversight? a lot of the questions just doesn't get answered. we are talking about these questions. and talking about everything but the answers. i was told and please correct the record, but i was told that you, yourself, had mentioned that the cfpb would absolutely not be adopting a safe harbor for q.m. is that not accurate? >> what i first -- first of all that rule is pending and not finalized. >> hold on. that's my point. it's a yes or no question. did you or did you not say that the cfpb would not be adopting safe harbor. that's yes or no? >> it's a little like bringing a justice supreme court in here last spring and saying are you or are you not going to find the affordable health care act unconstitutional? it's in process. it's not resolved. >> we will leave this hearing at this point. can you continue to watch on our companion network.

actually you can continue to watch on our website, cspan.org. live coverage of the house now as members are returning for legislative business this afternoon. on the calendar today a republican sponsored bill expressing congressional disapproval of the obama administration's easing of certain welfare to work rules. and changes to the balance visas for highly skilled workers. and now live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, rabbi steven lyle, orthodox union, new york, new york. the chaplain: master of the universe, today we stand before you in this hallowed hall,

greatful for the freedoms we have been granted here, grateful for the men and women here you have imbued with wisdom and blessed with the courage to make the decisions that will impact the destiny of all of humanity. allow the members of congress to be your partners in making a more perfect world and grant them the insight and the vision to be mindful of the responsibilities they bear. we implore you to guide and strengthen them so they can do what must be done to save the world from those who wish to perpetrate terror and evil. dear god, enable them to do what must be done to plant the seeds far brighter and more prosperous future. dear god, support them in providing our children with a strong education to meet the challenges of tomorrow. thank you for giving us such wonderful shepherds and allowing us to be their cherished flock. amen. >> the chair has examined the

journal of the last day's -- the speaker: the chair has examined -- examined the journal of the last day's proceedings. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, elizabeth from houston wrote me this about her business. my immigrant parents came to the united states legally. they had to learn english my dad worked very hard, he opened several bars and restaurants, hired wait staff, cooks, bartenders and cleaning people. there was never a dime from the

government. hard work, long hours and sleepless nights were the norm for all of us. i learned their work ethic early and worked very hard for my family no welfare, no government handouts. this is my country and i love this country so much, or as much as my parents did, but i do not respect the current president or his administration. they want to be in charge of all of us from cradle to grave. that's not the america i knew. that is exactly what my parents and grandparents fled from. please take us back to the right way. mr. speaker, elizabeth's family did it the right way and without big government getting in the way. they built their american dream all on their own. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute.

mr. kucinich: did the peabody electric company deliberately unload a bad organization onto the community? they forced municipal utilities to pay up to twice the market rate for ewe fillities. at a time when funding couldn't be found for new utility, they unloaded 95% of its investment onto public customers with a triple cost overrun with a coal mine that lasted 23 years instead of 30 years as promised. the contract which the municipals are locked into, they are forced to pay for power 42% above the rate, whether they receive power or not. wall street wouldn't invest in

a project so peabody went to main street and now millions of public power customers will pay sky high electric rates in what has all the appearances of a swindle. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, on friday, the administration released a report on how the president plans to implement the $600 billion defense sequester, threatening service members, military families and veterans. politico explained, quote, it shed new light on the sword of damocles, end of quote. this report, required by the passage of the sequestrations act, arrived one week late confirming the president and the liberal controlled senate have refused to take sequestration as a top priority. today the house armed services committee held a hearing to

receive testimony from key government officials to implement sequestration. based upon the minimal information provided, it is clear the scradmrgs has not made appropriate plans for the drastic budget cuts even though the white house is responsible for proposing the disastrous proposal. house republicans have voted five times to replace sequestration, led by chairman buck mckeon, with common sense reforms to avoid the threat to national security and destroying jobs. i urge the president to work with the house and senate before it's too late. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. courtney: vince lombardi once said, winners never quit and quitter never win. i was reminded of that when the house said they are canceling

all session days for the month of october despite the fact we have an unfinished farm bill, cybersecurity act and fiscal cliff looming on january 1 and a sequestration on january 2. there are passionate differences between the two sides about how to resolve these problems but they deal with it by going home for seven weeks. coach lombardy said winners never quit and quitter never win. the american people deserve better than a seven-week recess. it's time for this leader ship of this house to cancel their order and get back to work and solve the problems of our nation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. black: from a small town in middle tennessee, 13 young men

recently became the 2012 little league world series u.s. champions. these all-stars played with sportsmanship and talent beyond their years. in the u.s. championship game, goodletsville racked up 21 runs to become the first tennessee team in history to clinch the u.s. title. this achievement is a testimony to their dedication and perseverance, qualities that will serve them well throughout their life. they have made their hometown, their parents, their coaches, and their congressman very proud. i am confident that this achievement is just the beginning of more greathings to come from each of them. congratulations, boys. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is

recognized. ms. woolsey: i'd like to say that my team came in second to tennessee, tennessee was the only team that beat them, but beat them twice. they did a standup job, so did our kids in petaluma. so mr. speaker, on monday, i took part in a moving naturalization ceremony as 50 new people from 20 different countries took the oath that made them americans. 225 years to the day that the founders signed the u.s. constitution. mr. speaker, there's no constitutional right more precious than the right of self-governance and these new americans were excited for the very opportunity to vote in this upcoming election. that's why we should do everything, everything possible, to ensure that every eligible american can do just that. unfortunately, several states are throwing up barriers to

voter participation. restricting ballot access to silence people's voices. mr. speaker, guess who is disenfranchised by strict photo i.d. requirements and the like? not republicans. it's communities of color and low income families. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for a minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: mr. speaker, today weaver state university is honoring people and i wish to mention four individuals being honored by the university. state representative gauge fuller and state senator scot jenkins will be received the award for contributions for education. both have done much for their particular communities as well

as weaver state and their outreach council. receiving the president's award is know lal keris, who served as speaker of the house in utah and was instrumental in weaver state achieving the status of university level he has benefited the community and education in utah by being on the board of regents in utah. the second nominee will be one who is called the brightest -- one of the brightest minds in utah politics, spencer stokes, who has done much in his community as both commissioner as well as an advocate and is also, i have to admit, gone over to the dark side and is a staffer on the senate right now as the chief of staff for a utah senator but we'll forgive him for that. these four individuals have done much for the community, much for their common county, we're county, much for the state of utah and are very deserving of these honors being given by we're state university today and i wish to honor them as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> at the end of what the republicans consider to be a grueling work week, consisting of two and a half work days, we are heading home to take seven weeks off. ms. chu: we were in session for eight day this is month and were off five weeks before that. during their time here in washington, republicans made sure to vote to end medicare as we know it, increase costs for seniors and give tax breaks to millionaires and companies that ship jobs overseas. but on addressing the ongoing jobs crisis in this country they did nothing. and on providing tax cuts for the middle class and small business, they did nothing. and on working toward a bipartisan solution to the looming fiscal cliff, they left the american people hanging by continuing to do nothing.

the hard working men and women who call this country home deserve so much better. they certainly deserve better than nothing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. >> i rise in support of h.r. 6785. it will create a smarter more integrated approach to our country to get the brightest and best students. mr. yoder: retention of these highly skilled, american-trained innovateors is crucial to our economy. rather than giving the boot to students who are american educated at our best universitys like the university

of kansas in these advanced fields of study, we should work together to make sure these bright minds can stay here and boost our global competitiveness rather than returning to their home nation to work against us. by working together in bipartisan fashion to prioritize these students in -- in our national immigration policy, we can boost job creation and improve our economy by allowing the u.s. to retain some of the best and brightest minds. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . mr. higgins: that's puts us into a $697 billion drop in the american economy and loss of 738,000 jobs. but that's not the only area where our anemic infrastructure

investment has become a drag on the american economy. we will lose hundreds of billions of dollars in gross over the next five years because of our inability to move goods and people efficiently. congress just passed a bill to spend $52 billion on road and bridges in this country. all we can afford. but somehow we found money to spend $150 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq and ghanistan. i introduce add bill, five-year, $1.2 trillion investment in roads and bridges, port, transit, airports because the time to do nation build something right here at home. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, new mexico is celebrating its centennial this year. 100 years as a state. not one of the oldest states, but it's one of the richest in

diversity, history, and cooperation. home to 19 individual pueblos, two apache indian tribes, numerous navajo chapters, the spanish came north out of mexico in the 16th century looking for the seven cities of gold. we are still looking for those today. we did find black gold under the east side of the state and in the northwest corner. new mexico is home to an agriculture industry that is second to none. it has the earliest existence, shows the earliest existence of humans there. santa fe is the oldest capital in america formed in 1610. but that's not where the richness of new mexico is. it's in our traditions. traditions of hard work. traditions of faith, family, freedom, and service to others. those are the values i learned when my parents came to new mexico. they went broke in texas, came

to new mexico, and built the family there. that's the richness of new mexico. mr. speaker, i commend new mexico on the hundred years and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. sires: mr. speaker, last month i joined 78 bipartisan members of congress in asking secretary of state clinton to ensure that iraq meets its obligations and protects the 3,400 iranian dissidents. residents at camp liberty are members of the m.e.k. in recent days another 680 residents have been relocated to camp liberty and the reis he settlement plan back to the united states. it is important we support these residents as they seek to liquidate tens of billions of dollars of their assets left behind. a major problem as long as the m.e.k. remains on the u.s. list of foreign service organization

as they will not be able to find countries which will accept them. the department of state is currently under court order to make a decision on the m.e.k.'s case by october 1, 2012. it is my hope that the department of state remove the m.e.k. from the foreign terrorist organization list immediately as it is the legal, moral, and humane thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, one year ago congress took action finally to reform out-of-control crises charge the to our small businesses and customers every time they swiped a debit card. for years the card companies and big banks have eessentially been ripping folks off overcharging them w no one watching just because they could they were charging the highest fees in the world. running up billions of dollars in profits but all at the

expense of small businesses and consumers. that's just too much. there's no justification for this. a year ago congress finally took action on the debit card that's good for our economy, fair to our small merchants, but we need to do more. abuses continue in credit cart swipees. the credit cart companies and the big banks should step back and have a business model where they charge a fair price for an important service but not rip off our cuss to. ers. i yield back -- customers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i rise to commemorate the tragic passing of neal, nephew of my friend and constituent, suzanne murphy of southampton new york. mr. bishop: neal was a rising senior at catholic university, he was fatally shot on august 22, 2010, while riding his bicycle home from a restaurant where he worked as waiter, he was 31 years old and returned to

college with plans to pursue a career in science. his assailant was a 16-year-old boy who shot him six times with a .38 caliber handgun and then robbed him. suzanne's family has been wrenched with grief over the sudden end of this young man's life. while no memorials could begin to take away the pain of this loss, she has found a way to channel her grief. she has become an advocate for gun control. when roughly 100,000 americans are killed or wounded with guns each year, reasonable people can agree we can conceive evenhanded policies that protect americans from senseless gun violence that do not infringe on any americans' right to possess a firearm. i applaud her efforts to reach out and bring awareness to the problem of gun safety. we must not let her nephew become just another chilling statistic in the battle to make our community safer. leaving another family struggling to get past the pain and the loss. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address

the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. president harry truman of missouri famously labeled the republican congress of 1948 the do-nothing congress. but at the call this congress the do-nothing congress would be an insult to the 1948 congress. that was 10 times more productive than this congress. with the house recessing on the 21st, the earliest the congress has left to campaign in 52 years. the g.o.p.-led 112 congress has achieved the lowest approval rating ever, nearly nine out of 10 americans say they disapprove of this congress. maybe we should feel lucky that congress hasn't been here. because when they have been here, they voted to end medicare as we know it. give tax breaks to millionaires over the middle class. they have left town without passing middle class tax cuts, the farm bill, the violence against women's act, and

responsible defendant reduction and they have voted for corporations to ship jobs overseas instead of passing the american jobs act. let's stop calling this the do-nothing congress. this is worse than the do-nothing congress. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? does gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. moran: i seek unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to talk about the number 47. a lot has been the percentage of persons students and elderly and working poor who -- many of whom are paying more in total taxes than mr. romney is paying on his tens of millions of dollars in annual income, but who nevertheless he considers to be slackers, no i'm talking about 47 as in the number of days left before the election.

in the context of the fact we have one more day we will be in session. the most basic and fundamental responsibility our constituents sent us to washington to address are being left totally unresolved. never have i seen a house of representatives so unproductive and so dysfunctional. and i say it's the so-called gingrich revolution. the fact is that today the house republican leadership and too many of its rank and file members seem to think that economic stimulus, which is vitally needed in this economy, is a dirty word. and the federal government is some kind of alien enterprise. and their approach as a result is to do nothing. that's what we have done for the last two years. nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i request

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from hawaii is recognized. ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize lynn makasomi of honolulu, hawaii. the national endowment of arts has named her the 2012 national heritage fellow for her contributions to her folk and traditional art. this award honors her lifetime commitment to okinawan classical dance, which is also referred to as buku dance and embodies her accomplishments by identifying her as one of country's living treasures. it was at the age of 6 that she began to master this type of dance. she is originally from okinawa but has resided in hawaii since her marriage to her loving husband, clarence, in 1955. in 1956, she founded dance academy in honolulu.

for over five decades has been performing and coreo graphing creative dances. her performing skills are legendary, but it is her aloha spirit that endures the test of time and her passion, knowledge, and kindness that touched countless individuals over the years. there is no doubt in my mind that shele is deserving of this award and she has dedicated her life to preserving the okinawan culture while positively impacting others and contributing to the diversity and uniqueness of our culture in the united states. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. davis: thank you. last week the san diego chamber of congress sent its largest ever delegation of community and business leaders to washington. they came because they know washington can help them spur

the economy, innovate, and employ local workers if we can all get on the same page. what grand request did they have for this congress to help make progress happen? well, just that we do our jobs. that we roll up our sleeves. work together across party lines and find a sensible, not an arbitrary balance of cuts and spending. yes, mr. speaker. this country is facing some hard choices and yes there is division in this chamber, but we do not need, we do not need to add to the serious challenges facing american business and families by sitting on the sidelines watching a completely man-made disaster explode upon our economy. let's work together to come to decisions now. the american economy should not be facing a fiscal cliff. it should be receiving a fiscal road map. by actually doing our job we can make the job of our hardworking constituents a little easier.

our job is not done, mr. speaker, cancel the congressional recess. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new mexico seek recognition? without objection. the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. america online mr. speaker, i rise today to join my colleagues in celebrating new mexico's centennial. we are proud to introduce a resolution honoring the 100 years since new mexico became a state on january 6, 1912. home to some of the earliest human settlements in north america, new mexicans have spent this year celebrating our state's remarkable history and meaningful contributions to the nation and the world. from the fertile rio grande valley to the vast chi with a aian desert new mexico's national beauty is unsurpassed. from conrad hilton.

from nancy lopez to brian urlacher, from georgia o'keefe, from dennis chavez to dolores verta and countless other new mexicans our impact on america's past, present e. and future cannot be overstated. mr. heinrich: as we continue to celebrate our centennial year i join with all new mexicans to honor our unique heritage and bright future. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. yarmuth: my colleagues from across the aisle like to talk a lot about personal responsibility. but their decision to adjourn congress for nearly two months shows how little they actually understand the concept. congress is facing serious deadlines right now and we should be dealing with the problems the american people sent us here to solve. instead, republican leadership has decided we should go home without doing any of it and taking with us one of the worst

report cards in american history. for more than a year now republicans have ignored a plan to create 2.6 million new jobs and protect another 1.6 million existing jobs. they won't even bring it to the floor for a vow. right now we should bring to the floor and send to the president's desk a bill that protect tax cuts for 98% of the american people and 97% of small businesses, but instead we are going home. republicans had to take our country off the fiscal cliff which will hobble our economy, raise taxes on millions of working families and once again shift the responsibility of our deficit to those who can least afford it. mr. speaker, republicans can't seek personal responsibility if they are not willing to accept it themselves i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? . >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> from september 15 to october

15, we honor the heritage and many contributions of the latino community nationwide. the store roif hispanic americans is truly an american story. in america if you work hard, play by the rules and dream big, there's no limit to what you can achieve. from the hard work of immigrants and their children, the arts and education, to nearly one million latino veterans who have proudly served in uniform, hispanics have played a vital role in shaping our nation. mr. costa: there's still more work to be done, such as a i dressing health care distear p -- disparities and increasing high school graduation rates. we don't all share the same roots but we share the same goals, giving the next generation of americans to achieve the american dream that american dream is part and parcel of what we celebrate and hon nor in the hispanic

heritage month. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: i ask unanimous consent to remove representative mcinerney of california as a co-spon or of of h.r. 4664, the wildlife prevention act. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? mr. bishop by -- mr. bishop: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house resolution 788, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider house joint resolution 118 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code of course the rule submitted by the office of family assistance of the administration for children and families of the

department of health and human services relating to waiver and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the social security act 42 u.s.c. 1315 with respect to the temporary assistance for needy families program. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are twhavepled joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided a among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and the work force, and two, one motion to recommit. section 2. at any time after the adoption of this resolution, the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union on the state of the

union for consideration of the bill h.r. 3409 to limit the authority of the secretary of the interior to issue regulations before december 31, 2013, under the surface mining control and reclamation act of 1977. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce, and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the commn -- committee on natural resources now printed in the bill it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for e purpose of amendment under the

five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a subse tutt con tisting of rules committee print 112-132. that shall be considered as read. all points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those prinned in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question in the house or the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. any member may demand a

separate vote in the house on any amendment adopted in the committee of the whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section three, on any legislative day during the period from september 22, 2012, through november 12, 2012, a, the journal of the proceeds of the previous day shall be considered as approved. b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article 1 of the constitution to be announced bhi the chair in declaring the adjournment, an c, bills and resolutions address -- into deuced in this period shall be numbered, listed in the congressional record and shall bear the date of introduction

but may be referred by the speaker at a later time. section 4, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period addressed di-- addressed by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. section five, each day in the period addressed shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the war powers resolution, 50 u.s.c. 1546. section 6, each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for the purposes of clause 7 of rule 13. section 7. each day during the period addressed by section 3 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7-c-1 of rule 22. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: i respectfully raise

a point of order against h.res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426 parena of the congressional budget act. it contains a waiver against all points of order against consideration of the bill, including a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426 a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentlelady from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of the date on the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of dispose of the point of order. the chair recognizes the the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates although there are some in the underlying bill under

consideration here today. h.j.res. 118 and h.r. 3409. rather, i am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice my adamant opposition to the disapproval of h.j.res. 118 given the strict closed terms of our debate today. my goal here today, mr. speaker, is to be a voice of reason. and certainly, a voice of truth in this debate. because we are all undoubtedly about to hear an astonishing array of half-truths and, mr. speaker, even lies about the temporary assistance for needy families program or tanff. the lie that the tan sks f program was a raging success that took people out of poverty, gave them dignity and put them in good jobs. what it really did was kick

poor people off the roles. you know, under president clinton, 1996, when we passed the original tanf bill, it was a time of prosperity and those people primarily women, who would normally get off the roles within two years found jobs which were ready -- readily available but even more, primarily women, just simply languished in poverty as a permanent underclass. and despite the creation of the so-called safety net under tanf, many, many women languished in poverty and are still in poverty today. and we're not just talking about the poor. we're talking about deep poverty. mr. speaker, did you know that between 1996 and 2011, the numbers of u.s. households living on less than $2 per person per day, the measure of

extreme poverty, ats defined by the world bank for developing nations, has more than doubled, from 636,000 to 1.46 million, nearly 1.5 million people. and the number of children in extremely poor households also doubled from 1.4 million up to 2.8 million children living in poverty. children, by the way who cannot work. we're talking about the poorest of the poor. these numbers are startling, given that we're talking about the united states of america. not some third world country. now, mr. speaker, let's get to the big lie that these resolutions relate to. the republicans claim that the work requirement has been

gutted. under the health and human services guidance. these lies have already been debunked by the media, by fact check checkers, by even original architects of tanf. for example, ron haskins. but apparently, our colleagues find it convenient to ignore the facts, but of course we have heard throughout this election cycle that the g.o.p. is not going to be dictated by facts. now, sadly, i am not at all surprised that we are forced to engage in this tanf battle on the house floor. i knew that the g.o.p. would challenge the administration's proposal at the earliest opportunity. but frankly, house republicans' timing on this could not be worse. do you think that the american people are demanding more attacks on the poor from your

party this week? or that doubling down on a strategy of vilifying the poor is a wise choice? trotting out the mythical lay sir welfare queen who doesn't want to take responsibility for their own lives, part of the 47% who would rather have a so-called government handout than a job. i think that the insistence on considering this bill at this moment in history when we should be considering critical issues like the farm bill for our drought ridden states or the violence against women act or how about this one, mr. speaker, the american jobs act. rather than political message bills, is remarkably tone deaf. tanf was written at a time when our labor market and economy were radically different than

they are today. i didn't support tanf in 1996. but i certainly don't support it now that i have seen what it has done. it has become a hollow shell of a safety net program. it has not been allowed to evolve with the times and it is now nothing short of completely broken. tanf recipients have been poorly served by the program, which too often locks people into a cycle of poverty through rigid guidelines and red tape while allowing them no access to real opportunity. the program in its current form makes it extremely hard to move from welfare to work which is supposedly the goal of the program. an honorable goal of the program. states, mr. speaker, check this out.

states can meet their work requirements even if none, zero, of their recipients find a job. states are only measured by whether or not recipients participate in certain activities for a set number of hours, like if they just job search and never find a job. not only are we not moving people from welfare to work in this program, we're not allowing people any opportunity to get the education and training they might need to compete in the labor market. or learn valuable skills. we are trapping them in so-called job search activities that are poorly designed and add up to nothing. tanf just does not provide real opportunities that can translate into a better life for beneficiaries. there are others who are unable to get help at all because the program is not designed to

allow them in the door. . shockingly states are rewarded for simply lowering their caseloads rather than moving people into jobs. there is indeed state can create barriers to keep families from even participating. we have heard the horror stories of people who have been kicked off tanf or couldn't get in in the first place and the desperate things they have had to do to feed and shelter and clothe their children. by now those of us have been paying even the barest minimum of attention realize that the republicans have been playing politics with the obama administration's waiver program and playing fast and loose with reality. i would venture to guess every member in this chamber knows the truth that republicans and

democratic governors have been requesting increased flexibility in implementing the welfare reform for many years. in fact, in 2005 no fewer than 29 republican governors asked for increased waiver authority. and given my limited time i will only name a few of them. we have socialist governors like mississippi governor haley barber. texas governor rick perry. how about arkansas governor mike huckabee, and none other but drumroll, please, massachusetts governor mitt romney. lick these governors i wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing states flexibility to craft a welfare system that meets the specific needs of their job market and their participants. i know and i know that many of you know, though you refuse to

acknowledge it, that the waiver proposal from the department of health and human services was meaningfully strengthen our ability to keep people from welfare to work. may i inquire, mr. speaker, how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 40 seconds remaining. ms. moore: i have 40 seconds. he was once one of those 47%. a welfare recipient and i have seen firsthand the successes and failures of this safety net. in my community and across the nation. i support the administration's strategic efforts to guarantee that tanf is a more effective program. i encourage all my colleagues to reject h.j.res. 118, this resolution of disapproval and work together to build a strong work force and economy. thank you so much, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. the gentleman from utah.

mr. bishop: mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. the question before the house is should the house consider h.res. 788. while the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of h.j.res. 118 and house h.r. 3409, the committee is not affair of any points of order and the waiver is basically prophylactic in nature. we heard, mr. speaker, a lot of emotional and interesting points as to the basis of the bill that could be debated if indeed this rule were to be passed. i doesn't think it is actually the time right now in the point of order to go over the benefits of the bill or the detriment of whatever may happen if the bill itself is actually debated. there is time for that.

we do know the number of individuals receiving welfare have dropped by 57% and the poverty among all single mothers has fallen by 30% and poverty has been at its lowestselves since 2001. and the employment numbers have increase significantly. but that's all debate to the bill we still have to go through the rule debate and we are not talking about that. this is a procedural issue. we could talk about the fact that in 1993 the ways and means committee said the waiver may not override provisions of the tanf law that concerned further mandatory work requirements, but once again that would be the kinds of things that we should be talking about in the debate of the bill will will come after the debate on the rule which will come after our discussion of this procedural point of order. so actually the merits of what the bill is is not the same thing as the purpose of the

procedural point of order. procedural point of order still has to be based on the idea of unfunded mandates within the rule. the congressional budget office believes that h.r. 349 would impose a governmental mandate as defined in the unfunded mandate reform act. however based on the information for e.p.a. and small number of public entities would be required to comply with the bill's requirements c.b.o. estimates that the cost of those entities to complyle with while below the unfun funded mandate reform act annual threshold for individual government mandates. it's a threshold set and adjusts for inflation. so the congressional budget office states that h.j.res. 118 also contains no intergovernment or private sector mandates has defined by state mandate reform act. that is the basis of the point of order. the bottom line is there is no violation of what's an unfunded

mandate within the rule or the bills themselves. the rest of the discussion is actually for the merits of the legislation and is appropriate at the time of the merits of that -- at the time of that -- as we are debating that legislation. so, mr. speaker, although i really have a great desire to use the full 10 minutes of discussion here, the bottom line still -- no, thank you. i appreciate -- would you let me finish the statement, though. ms. moore: yield for a question. mr. bishop: let me finish here. probablely not. let's get on with the issue at hand here. the point of order basically, mr. speaker, is still specious. in order to allow the house to continue its scheduled business for the day because the issue of the point of order is the unfunded mandate not the other merit towards the legislation. i do urge members to vote yes on

the question of consideration. we will have an additional hour to discuss anything you wish to on the rule debate as well as a whole lot of time on the merit of the bill when we debate the bill itself. with that i ask -- call a question of consideration of the resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is, will the house now consider the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah for one hour. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. and during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask that all members will have five legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. this resolution provides for a

closed rule for the consideration of h.j.r. 118, the congressional disapproval waiver of work requirements and provides one hour of general debate with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and work force, the rule also provides for a structured debate for consideration of h.r. 3409, the coal miner employment and domestic energy infrastructure protection act, and provides for one hour much general debate with 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resource, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce, 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure. finally, this rule makes a number -- makes in order a number of important amendments, both sides of the aisle, if

staff doesn't change my mind, i believe, there are 13, seven republicans, this is as close as you can get to an uneven number with a fair rule. it is a fair rule. i would like to yield myself as much time as i may consume to speak towards the merit of this particular resolution. -- this particular resolution for the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, sir. i'm pleased to stand here and talk about this particular rule. i would also like to make special mention, congressman johnson, who is the state sponsor of 3409, coal miner employment energy protection act, he's definitely been one of the leaders in this entire area of coal -- of the issue of coal as it's used in energy. not only is it important to his constituents, but this is an important issue for the entire contry. i wanted to recognize mr. johnson as having been tireless in the committee asking questions that goes to the core

of this particular issue, providing amendments and finally culminating with his bill which deals with how we actually can use coal to further, further our energy needs in this particular country. representative johnson is a freshman who has learned fast and is a true champion for inexpensive energy that will expand our economy and create jobs for american citizens. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you. this week marks the last time the chamber will meet until the middle of november. as we depart, the majority walks awayle with the dubious distinction of having presided over a session of congress that is widely called the least productive in history. this congress has achieved that

distinction because of although bipartisan consensus is needed to pass any bill into law, the majority has spent the last two years pursuing an extreme and partisan agenda. in fact, they have repeatedly turned potential bipartisanship in order to vote on ideological legislation that will never become law. in week after week the majority has refused to help our nation's drought stricken farmers. and bipartisan outcry to pass a five-year farm bill growing, the majority decided to neglect our nation's farmers and allow the farm bill to expire without even attempting to pass the bill at any time in the house. an expiration of the farm bill means that dairy farmers in my part of the country, western new york, and throughout the united states will lose what little safety net they have. yet when facedle with passing a

compromise farm bill or pursuing an all or nothing partisan agenda, or as we are doing today passing bills that have already passed the house, just because they like them so much they wanted to do it again, the majority chose the latter. western new york farmers don't need the majority to play partisan games they need a five-year farm bill and they needed it now. unfortunately the bills we consider today offer more of the same. both the bills before us today are little more than extreme and partisan messaging documents. designed to benefit politicians running for office not the american citizens struggling to get by. take for example h.r. 3409, the coal miner employment and domestic energy infrastructure protection act. that's a fine title there. four out of five titles in this bill, as i said a minute ago, four out of the five bills in

this measure have already been voted on by the house but they were too partisan and extreme to pass the senate and they will not yet again pass the senate, therefore it's simply a waste of time today. it costs a lot of money to bring all the members of congress back to washington from the four corners of the united states, and to come back to repass bills that have already passed and will never go beyond this house cannot be called anything else but a disastrous waste of time. among other things the bill would roll back decades of environmental protections, endanger the public's 112th, and prevent from country from addressing the growing threat of climate change. now the majority knows that they will not pass into law but they are moving forward anyway in order to serve political campaigns. similar sentiments appear to be for the second proposal. the tanf disapproval resolution. this bill is based upon a